Attribution and credit bias in publication ethics

Area of Science:

• Bibliometrics
• Publication Ethics
• Scientific Communication

Background:

• Ethical issues in journal authorship are complex.
• Current authorship models may not fully capture responsibilities.
• Misattribution can undermine scientific integrity.

Purpose of the Study:

• To reframe authorship within the broader concept of attribution.
• To define and illustrate "credit bias" in scientific literature.
• To propose a framework for evaluating publications and promoting ethical conduct.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis of authorship and attribution.
• Definition of "credit bias" as systematic distortion.
• Case study of misattribution in drug industry literature.
• Examination of editorial standards' role.
• Proposal of an independent scientific standard.

Main Results:

• Attribution offers a clearer lens for ethical authorship issues.
• "Credit bias" systematically distorts attributions, often favoring influential parties.
• Drug industry literature exemplifies credit bias.
• Editorial standards can both mitigate and facilitate credit bias.

Conclusions:

• Rethinking authorship as attribution clarifies ethical challenges.
• Addressing credit bias is crucial for scientific integrity.
• An independent scientific standard is needed in the medical journal sector to ensure ethical conduct.